A Child Of Atom

For nearly a decade I've been having an argument with BFE Michelle. It essentially boils down to this: What matters more, what the artist intended, or what the viewer actually sees?

Take a look at this painting and try to decipher what is happening. What you as the viewer sees.

This painting hung outside George Bush's office during his tenure as governor of Texas. He has mentioned this painting and what it means in dozens of speeches. Here's a taste:

I thought I would share with you a recent bit of Texas history which epitomizes our mission. When you come into my office, please take a look at the beautiful painting of a horseman determinedly charging up what appears to be a steep and rough trail. This is us. What adds complete life to the painting for me is the message of Charles Wesley that we serve One greater than ourselves.

According to Bush the painting is titled "A Charge to Keep" and is all about a missionary who helped spread Methodism across the Alleghenies in the late 1800's. His particular perception as a viewer.

In fact, and with great irony that has been reported in a dozen places round the web today the truth is something else all together.

...that is not the title, message, or meaning of the painting. The artist, W.H.D. Koerner, executed it to illustrate a Western short story entitled “The Slipper Tongue,” published in The Saturday Evening Post in 1916. The story is about a smooth-talking horse thief who is caught, and then escapes a lynch mob in the Sand Hills of Nebraska. The illustration depicts the thief fleeing his captors.

Now, tell me... what matters more, the artist's intent, or the viewer's perception? Even though I find the irony of the artist's intent here hilarious... I say it is the perception that matters. What about you?